Expulsion of Turkish citizen

Case 37/2022
Judgment delivered on 15 September 2022

The Public Prosecutor
vs.
T

T had been convicted of violation of section 192a(1)(1), cf. Subsection (3), of the Danish Penal Code for possession of a semi-automatic pistol with a magazine and eight bullets in a public place and subsequent safekeeping of the pistol etc. in his room. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months. The District Court had issued T with an expulsion warning, but the High Court had sentenced T to expulsion with a six-year entry ban.
The issue before the Supreme Court only concerned expulsion. T claimed that he should be issued with an expulsion warning, while the Prosecution Service claimed that the entry ban should be extended from six to 12 years.
The Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that T, who was a Turkish citizen, was covered by the EEC-Turkey Association Council Decision, and what remained to be determined by the Supreme Court was whether expulsion would be in contravention of Article 14(1) of the Association Decision or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Considering the nature of and circumstances surrounding the offence, the Supreme Court agreed that, although T had no prior offences – except for some fines, T’s conduct had to be regarded as constituting a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting fundamental interests of society, cf. Article 14(1) of the Association Decision.
In its proportionality assessment, the Supreme Court gave importance to the fact that T’s ties to Denmark were much stronger than his ties to Turkey. However, in addition to being a Turkish citizen, he did have some connection to Turkey, and he would not be unable to fit into Turkish society if he were expelled.
Considering the nature and severity of his offence, the Supreme Court considered based on an overall assessment of the facts that the reasons for expelling T were so compelling that they outweighed the reasons for not expelling him due to his strong ties to Denmark.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the six-year entry ban did not amount to a disproportionate restriction in contravention of Article 14(1) of the Association Decision or Article 8 of the ECHR. However, based on an overall assessment of the facts of the case as described, the Supreme Court held that it would be disproportionate to uphold the Prosecution Services' claim for extension of the entry ban to 12 years.
The Supreme Court thus affirmed the judgment of the High Court.